[SUBMITTED] Parking? Lots!

[Paffnia]

Parking? Lots!
Validity: cars are legal; does not have underground cities (#241.3, #282.3, #342.3, #342.4, #725.2)

Like almost every municipality in @@NAME@@, @@CAPITAL@@'s local government requires buildings to include parking. But the plans for a new tower in downtown @@CAPITAL@@ have taken it to a new level: five floors of offices on top of 30 stories of car parking. Calling this the last straw, a group of architects and neighbors have signed a petition against this glut of garages and parking lots, which they claim encourages driving and takes up space from other uses.

1. "These garages are driving me parking mad!" exclaims architect @@RANDOMNAME@@, the petitioners' spokesperson. "Vast, dirty garages and lots make it unpleasant and unsafe to walk. What's more, they just look ugly! Imagine storefronts and apartments stoops lining the sidewalk instead of asphalt and concrete slabs. We can keep the parking requirements in place for drivers, but at least mandate that all parking be built underground. That way, our cities will improve by a lot...a parking lot."
Effect: cars rarely see the light of day.

2. "Look, I'm not happy about all the parking myself," sighs the real estate developer behind the new building. "Constructing a big garage ain't cheap, and it'd be even more costly to put underground. The only reason I've planned for so many spaces is that the @@CAPITAL@@ building code requires them. Get rid of these requirements, and I can construct whatever building plan makes the most money—I mean, sense."
Effect: only luxury developments have enough parking.

3. "That doesn't go far enough!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a progressive urban planner who managed to bike straight into your office. "The reason so many people drive—and therefore pollute—is that there are too many parking spots. Plus, costly garages and lots drive up rents and store prices. No new parking should be allowed in city buildings, and existing parking should be demolished. That way, everyone will be forced—er, encouraged to take a greener mode of travel."
Effect: treasure hunters are searching for the country's last remaining open parking space.

4. "We need all that parking!" protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Automobile Association, whose SUV is taking up four spaces in the lot outside your office. "If you stop requiring parking in buildings, there'll be traffic jams of people looking for street parking. Buildings should be required to provide more parking—two spaces every car expected, just to be safe, in state-of-the-art garages with occupancy displays and parking attendants. I should never have to wait for a spot to open up again."
Effect: cars have more homes than people.

Parking? Lots!
Validity: cars are legal; does not have underground cities (#241.3, #282.3, #342.3, #342.4, #725.2)

Like almost every municipality in @@NAME@@, the local government in @@CAPITAL@@ requires new construction to include parking. But the plans for a new office building in downtown @@CAPITAL@@ have taken it to a new level: five floors of offices on top of 30 stories of car parking. Calling this the last straw, a group of architects and neighbors have signed a petition against this glut of garages and parking lots, which they claim encourages driving and takes up space from other uses.

1. "These garages are driving me parking mad!" exclaims architect @@RANDOMNAME@@, the petitioners' spokesperson. "Vast, dirty garages and lots at street level make it unpleasant and unsafe to walk. What's more, they just look ugly! Imagine if there were storefronts and apartments stoops lining the sidewalk instead of asphalt and concrete slabs. We can keep the parking requirements in place for drivers, but at least mandate that all parking be built underground. That way, our cities will improve by a lot...a parking lot."
Effect: cars rarely see the light of day.

2. "Look, I'm not happy about all the parking myself," sighs the real estate developer behind the new building. "Constructing a big garage ain't cheap, and it'd be even more costly to put underground. The only reason I've planned for so many spaces is that the @@CAPITAL@@ building code requires them. Get rid of these requirements, and I can construct whatever building plan makes the most money—I mean, sense."
Effect: only luxury developments have enough parking.

3. "That doesn't go far enough!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a progressive urban planner who managed to bike straight into your office. "The reason so many people drive—and therefore pollute—is that there are too many parking spots. Plus, costly garages and lots drive up rents and store prices. No new parking should be allowed in city buildings, and existing parking should be demolished. That way, everyone will be forced—er, encouraged to take a greener mode of travel, like public transit or biking."
Effect: treasure hunters are searching for the country's last remaining open parking space.

4. "We need all that parking!" protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Automobile Association, whose SUV is taking up four spaces in the lot outside your office. "If you stop requiring parking in buildings, there'll be traffic jams of people looking for street parking clogging up city roads. In fact, buildings should be required to provide more parking—two spaces every car expected, just to be safe, in state-of-the-art garages with occupancy displays and parking attendants. I should never have to wait for a spot to open up in a garage again, not even on the busiest day of the year."
Effect: cars have more homes that people.

5. "Why not try sharing for a change?" suggests your Minister of Creative Solutions. "We can provide car parking and create new places to live, work, and play if we combine the two! Garages could double as housing or outdoor dining when spaces are empty! Parking lots could also serve as blacktops for kids to play! After all, when children and cars mix, what's the worst that could happen?"
Effect: dodgeball games also involve dodging cars.

Parking? Lots!
Validity: cars are legal; does not have underground cities (#241.3, #282.3, #342.3, #342.4, #725.2)

The plans for a new office building in downtown @@CAPITAL@@ have caused quite a stir: five floors of offices on top of 30 stories of car parking. Calling this the last straw, a group of architects and neighbors have signed a petition against the growing trend of buildings across @@NAME@@ constructed over atop garages or next to expansive parking lots.

1. "These garages are driving me parking mad!" exclaims architect @@RANDOMNAME@@, the petitioners' spokesperson. "Vast, dirty garages and lots at street level make it unpleasant and unsafe to walk. Plus, they just look ugly! Imagine if there were storefronts and apartments stoops lining the sidewalk instead of asphalt and concrete slabs. Mandate that all parking be built underground, and our cities will improve by a lot...a parking lot."
Effect: cars rarely see the light of day.

2. "Look, I'm not happy about all the parking myself," sighs the real estate developer behind the new building. "Constructing a big garage ain't cheap, and it'd be even more costly to put underground. The only reason I've planned so much parking is that the @@CAPITAL@@ building code requires a ton of spaces in all new buildings. Get rid of these requirements, and I can construct whatever building plan makes the most money—I mean, sense."
Effect: only luxury developments have enough parking.

3. "That doesn't go far enough!" @@RANDOMNAME@@, a progressive urban planner who managed to bike straight into your office. "The reason so many people drive is that there are too many parking spots. No new parking should be allowed in city buildings, and existing parking should be demolished. That way, everyone will be forced—er, encouraged to take a greener mode of travel, like public transit or biking."
Effect: reporters can no longer find garages where they can meet secret sources.

4. "We need all that parking!" protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Automobile Association, whose SUV is taking up four spaces in the lot outside your office. "If you stop requiring parking in buildings, there'll be traffic jams of people looking for street parking clogging up city roads. In fact, buildings should be required to provide more parking! I should never have to wait for a spot to open up in a garage again, not even on the busiest day of the year."
Effect: cars have more homes that people.

5. "Why not try sharing for a change?" suggests your Minister of Creative Solutions. "We can provide car parking and create new places to live, work, and play if we combine the two! Garages could double as housing or outdoor dining when spaces are empty! Parking lots could also serve as blacktops for kids to play! After all, when children and cars mix, what's the worst that could happen?"
Effect: dodgeball games also involve dodging cars.

[Paffnia]

There are a surprising number of underground city options.

Alternate title: Spaced Out / Parking Spaced Out / (Parking) Spaced Out

[Random Country 453632]

I say good job! But, i think the vocabulary is simple; you should travel your thesaurus.

[USS Monitor]

This is a little all over the place, but there might be a workable idea in here. Too much parking isn't a problem, so you should focus more on the side effects of the large parking lots.

Traffic congestion because the capacity of the roads doesn't keep up with the capacity of the parking garages? That's a problem. Too difficult for pedestrians to get around? That's a problem. Not enough green space because all the land is paved? That's a problem.

I think it would work better if you introduced one of these problems at the beginning before we get into the options, and then made that the central focus of the issue. For example, if you introduced the issue by saying there's not enough green space, the person that wants to put the garages underground could also advocate building parks over them. If you introduced it by saying the roads are too congested, your guy from the Automobile Association could advocate putting in more overpasses, tunnels, double-decked roads, etc. to cope with the traffic.

[Paffnia]

Too much parking isn't a problem, so you should focus more on the side effects of the large parking lots.

Required off-street parking in buildings 1) incentivizes (and subsidies) driving and 2) has an opportunity cost of whatever else the space could be better used for: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/w ... r-everyone. Cities are starting to get rid of parking requirements as a result: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-citywide. I didn't want to include too much of a critique of parking requirements in the intro, though, as that would seemingly bias the issue. Any suggestions on how to strike that balance?

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2- you can't assumptions that those kinds of laws exist

[Australian rePublic]

also, effect for option 3 should be something along the lines residents of @@CAPITAL@@ being unable to take road trips

[Paffnia]

Option 2- you can't assumptions that those kinds of laws exist

Parking requirements are nearly universal in the U.S., adopted in most cities in Europe, and common in Asia and worldwide. Besides, don't a lot of issues that deal with local governments assume that they did something, and then you react to it?

[Westinor]

I'd like to note that free parking and extra parking spaces can often come with higher costs to the consumer who parks and, say, shops at a local restaurant or mall. Not that that necessarily has any significance, but just a note.

[USS Monitor]

Too much parking isn't a problem, so you should focus more on the side effects of the large parking lots.

Required off-street parking in buildings 1) incentivizes (and subsidies) driving and 2) has an opportunity cost of whatever else the space could be better used for: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/w ... r-everyone. Cities are starting to get rid of parking requirements as a result: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-citywide. I didn't want to include too much of a critique of parking requirements in the intro, though, as that would seemingly bias the issue. Any suggestions on how to strike that balance?

you should focus more on the side effects of the large parking lots.

By the end of the intro, the player should have an idea of what the problem is. If you don't allude to any of the negative effects of parking requirements, there's no problem that needs to be addressed.

Explaining why people are protesting does not mean the player has to agree with the protesters. It just gives them a better idea what the conflict is about.

[Paffnia]

Redrafted:

Parking? Lots!
Validity: cars are legal; does not have underground cities (#241.3, #282.3, #342.3, #342.4, #725.2)

Like almost every municipality in @@NAME@@, the local government in @@CAPITAL@@ requires new construction to include parking. But the plans for a new office building in downtown @@CAPITAL@@ have taken it to a new level: five floors of offices on top of 30 stories of car parking. Calling this the last straw, a group of architects and neighbors have signed a petition against this glut of garages and parking lots, which they claim encourages driving and takes up space from other uses.

1. "These garages are driving me parking mad!" exclaims architect @@RANDOMNAME@@, the petitioners' spokesperson. "Vast, dirty garages and lots at street level make it unpleasant and unsafe to walk. Plus, they just look ugly! Imagine if there were storefronts and apartments stoops lining the sidewalk instead of asphalt and concrete slabs. We can keep the parking requirements in place for drivers, but at least mandate that all parking be built underground. That way, our cities will improve by a lot...a parking lot."
Effect: cars rarely see the light of day.

2. "Look, I'm not happy about all the parking myself," sighs the real estate developer behind the new building. "Constructing a big garage ain't cheap, and it'd be even more costly to put underground. The only reason I've planned for so many spaces is that the @@CAPITAL@@ building code requires them. Get rid of these requirements, and I can construct whatever building plan makes the most money—I mean, sense."
Effect: only luxury developments have enough parking.

3. "That doesn't go far enough!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a progressive urban planner who managed to bike straight into your office. "The reason so many people drive—and therefore pollute—is that there are too many parking spots. What's more, costly garages and lots drive up rents and store prices. No new parking should be allowed in city buildings, and existing parking should be demolished. That way, everyone will be forced—er, encouraged to take a greener mode of travel, like public transit or biking."
Effect: treasure hunters are searching for the country's last remaining open parking space.

4. "We need all that parking!" protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Automobile Association, whose SUV is taking up four spaces in the lot outside your office. "If you stop requiring parking in buildings, there'll be traffic jams of people looking for street parking clogging up city roads. In fact, buildings should be required to provide more parking—two spaces every car expected, just to be safe, in state-of-the-art garages with occupancy displays and parking attendants. I should never have to wait for a spot to open up in a garage again, not even on the busiest day of the year."
Effect: cars have more homes that people.

5. "Why not try sharing for a change?" suggests your Minister of Creative Solutions. "We can provide car parking and create new places to live, work, and play if we combine the two! Garages could double as housing or outdoor dining when spaces are empty! Parking lots could also serve as blacktops for kids to play! After all, when children and cars mix, what's the worst that could happen?"
Effect: dodgeball games also involve dodging cars.

Required off-street parking in buildings 1) incentivizes (and subsidies) driving and 2) has an opportunity cost of whatever else the space could be better used for: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/w ... r-everyone. Cities are starting to get rid of parking requirements as a result: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-citywide. I didn't want to include too much of a critique of parking requirements in the intro, though, as that would seemingly bias the issue. Any suggestions on how to strike that balance?

you should focus more on the side effects of the large parking lots.

By the end of the intro, the player should have an idea of what the problem is. If you don't allude to any of the negative effects of parking requirements, there's no problem that needs to be addressed.

Explaining why people are protesting does not mean the player has to agree with the protesters. It just gives them a better idea what the conflict is about.

Thanks for explaining. I've made the intro more explicit and framed it in terms of broader parking requirements and their effects first.

also, effect for option 3 should be something along the lines residents of @@CAPITAL@@ being unable to take road trips

I changed the effect line to more directly deal with the consequences of scarce parking.

I'd like to note that free parking and extra parking spaces can often come with higher costs to the consumer who parks and, say, shops at a local restaurant or mall. Not that that necessarily has any significance, but just a note.

Indeed! I've added a line top Option 3 about this.

[Fauxia]

Pretty good issue. However, five options is already a lot, and several of them are fairly long. I’d suggest slimming them down and considering dropping an option.

[Paffnia]

New draft:

Parking? Lots!
Validity: cars are legal; does not have underground cities (#241.3, #282.3, #342.3, #342.4, #725.2)

Like almost every municipality in @@NAME@@, @@CAPITAL@@'s local government requires buildings to include parking. But the plans for a new tower in downtown @@CAPITAL@@ have taken it to a new level: five floors of offices on top of 30 stories of car parking. Calling this the last straw, a group of architects and neighbors have signed a petition against this glut of garages and parking lots, which they claim encourages driving and takes up space from other uses.

1. "These garages are driving me parking mad!" exclaims architect @@RANDOMNAME@@, the petitioners' spokesperson. "Vast, dirty garages and lots make it unpleasant and unsafe to walk. What's more, they just look ugly! Imagine storefronts and apartments stoops lining the sidewalk instead of asphalt and concrete slabs. We can keep the parking requirements in place for drivers, but at least mandate that all parking be built underground. That way, our cities will improve by a lot...a parking lot."
Effect: cars rarely see the light of day.

2. "Look, I'm not happy about all the parking myself," sighs the real estate developer behind the new building. "Constructing a big garage ain't cheap, and it'd be even more costly to put underground. The only reason I've planned for so many spaces is that the @@CAPITAL@@ building code requires them. Get rid of these requirements, and I can construct whatever building plan makes the most money—I mean, sense."
Effect: only luxury developments have enough parking.

3. "That doesn't go far enough!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a progressive urban planner who managed to bike straight into your office. "The reason so many people drive—and therefore pollute—is that there are too many parking spots. Plus, costly garages and lots drive up rents and store prices. No new parking should be allowed in city buildings, and existing parking should be demolished. That way, everyone will be forced—er, encouraged to take a greener mode of travel."
Effect: treasure hunters are searching for the country's last remaining open parking space.

4. "We need all that parking!" protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Automobile Association, whose SUV is taking up four spaces in the lot outside your office. "If you stop requiring parking in buildings, there'll be traffic jams of people looking for street parking. Buildings should be required to provide more parking—two spaces every car expected, just to be safe, in state-of-the-art garages with occupancy displays and parking attendants. I should never have to wait for a spot to open up again."
Effect: cars have more homes that people.

Pretty good issue. However, five options is already a lot, and several of them are fairly long. I’d suggest slimming them down and considering dropping an option.

I've cut the last option and edited down the remaining ones a bit.

[Paffnia]

Moving this to "last call." Looks like another parking-related issue was just added, but that one is about dynamic pricing of public parking, while this one is about the provision of privately built off-street parking, which I hope is a different enough issue (how do we price parking vs. how much should we have).

[Honeydewistania]

Quite good, funny puns. I hope to see this published

[Fauxia]

Moving this to "last call." Looks like another parking-related issue was just added, but that one is about dynamic pricing of public parking, while this one is about the provision of privately built off-street parking, which I hope is a different enough issue (how do we price parking vs. how much should we have).

I think the issues are distinct enough.

Looks pretty good to me. Good job cutting the word count down, I know that that can be difficult.

[Paffnia]

Thank you both! Submitted!

[Outer Sparta]

I can't believe there hasn't been an issue about excess parking yet. Being from the US, it certainly is a huge problem in urban cores. Good luck with your issue!